I would suggest that performers only include people who specifically acted to get on screen. Cause Hawking was in the card game, but if it's only IRL Stockfootage (like, FDR, Nixon, Bush and Blair) it should by from Trek's pov. - AJHalliwell 14:23, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I believe I was answering "How did we handle this for Stephen Hawking?" I don't really see Bush, Hitler, etc as portraying themselves, as that was archived footage, not a role they were cast/credited for. --Alan del Beccio 19:55, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Would it not be better if only people who actually spoke be considered Star Trek performers? Tough Little Ship 22:18, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sites such as imdb lists uncredited, archive footage as performers playing themselves in roles, so I don't see why we would be any different. Also, if we don't credit these appearances as roles, what else is there to write about them? All we know is that they exist and are a part of history before the time that Star Trek: Enterprise is set. There is no canonical "proof" that they served the same role in the Star Trek universe as they did in real life. For example, there is no "evidence" that George W. Bush was American President in both universes. For all we know, he could have been a dictator in World War III, one of Khan Noonien Singh's allies in the Eugenics Wars, or the inventor of PADDs! --Defiant | Talk 23:06, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Although it is an example, I take offence at the dictator comment. But the same would go for Clinton. --TOSrules 23:23, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

How can you spell offense with a c and think he's not a dictator? -Coke 23:29, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This is not the place for a political debate, respect MA --TOSrules 23:36, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Then with all due respect, it was a hypothetical scenario so please don't read too much into it. Coke 23:45, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I promise not to construct examples that cast people you like as a dictator but then again, that is because I have a health dose of respect. --TOSrules 23:59, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

On a different note, calling someone who was not either a major player, or cast for the role a performer just goes a little to far. Archival footage of a person should be listed as such. Using historical data and listing someone as a performer are two different issues in my mind. --TOSrules 23:36, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Have the recent changes to the page made it any better? --Defiant | Talk 00:08, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Something just doesn't seem right about the way the POV shifts all of a sudden from speaking about him in a historic "Trek" persepctive and then suddenly saying he appeared as himself. -Coke 00:09, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The page now reads as though Bush was definately President in the Star Trek universe. Sorry, but I didn't know that MA allows for speculation. --Defiant | Talk 00:35, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It already did in your version, by saying he "was" the president. if you don't like something (I get the feeling that was sarcasm) feel free to change it. -Coke 00:39, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I wasn't being sarcastic - I genuinely did not believe that speculation was welcomed on MA. Although I don't like the way the page now reads, I'm unsure as to how to change it. That's why I'm discussing it here, trying to fish for ideas. But after all, this site is a community effort and if most users are okay with the page as it is, I am too. --Defiant | Talk 00:47, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

For what its worth i'm in the same boat as you. It seems awkward but so does anything else. I really don't know why this page is here at all since we don't have pages for other things that were only "seen" in the Trek universe. -Coke 01:04, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Another page for something just "seen" is Toronto City Hall, which I also do not believe should be a part of MA. However, if users are requesting its existence here, pages for Tony Blair and George W. Bush probably have to be created, too! --Defiant | Talk 01:14, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The existance of these images is a given, they were shown so we have to archive them. What is not given is what we say on these article pages. The fact is, we have no idea what these images mean in trek reality, or even if the timestream was showing another reality, maybe even "ours" as science fiction has been known to toss in such twists. I'm not saying that that is the way it is, but simply showing that we have no idea what these images are saying and filling them in with real life info is not the solution. I propose we simply create a page for Timestream images and make our list there, with a nice note on the bottom saying that we have no way of knowning what these images mean. Jaf 03:31, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Well yeah, I agree with you about we have no idea how different the cirumstances are, but whem I tried taking out some of the questionable info like him being the 43rd president, someone reverted it on the basis that this information is concrete whereas apparently the year his term would have ended is not. Then again my attempts to make the page a single POV were also reverted so I give up. -Coke 03:37, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This is why I am attempting to resolve the conflict. Do the other parties involved agree to this solution? Jaf 03:39, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Why is the information seen in the time stream any different then other possible alternate timeline info? I think they should each have their own article, with notes on the bottom about how the timeline may be different. As for (if the article stays seperate) I believe it should be about the character, not a "from production" pov. - AJHalliwell 03:48, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

So why did you revert my "character" POV version and cite POV as part of the reason? Coulda just taken the 2008 out and it would be fine unless I'm missing something. -Coke 03:52, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Please, lets all try to find some common ground.

#)We don't know if it's an alternate timeline. Yes, it's a safe bet, but with only disconnected images to work with we have only speculation.

#) Speculation is why this is causing such a fuss. All the arguments are based entirely on subjectivity.

#) If we wish to keep any of our objectivity we have to stick to recording canon.

#) Normal pages for these images are not helping us get there.

As for other alternate timelines; if we have pages on MA where we have imbued the truths of our reality as a higher truth then the canon of trek please point them out so that they can also be edited. Jaf 03:57, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

To be from the Trek point of view, we can't use terms like "currently serving". Also, we don't know he'll be president until 2008, so that's almost speculation. For all we know he's sleeping with his secretary, and will be impeached in 2007. - AJHalliwell 03:16, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my first version was meant to be from a production point of view as seen in actor pages. You reverted that. I fixed it by making a fully trek point of view and you reverted the second change as well. What exactly do you want, a separate article for Bush's character? -Coke 03:18, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, but still concerning the timeline reset scene, could the archive footage of only Earth's past indicate that Archer was actually not in an galaxy-wide alternate timeline. I don't think it was ever confirmed by Daniels, Silik or any other authority who was completely aware of what was happening that Archer was in an alternate timeline. Could it be that it was only Earth and an area surrounding the planet (including the moon) that was shifted out of time? --Defiant | Talk 23:47, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Er, but in that shift, any future events that concerned earth would also be shifted, wouldn't they? -Coke 23:50, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I don't see localized time-shifts like that to make sense. If Earth's history changed, the entire history of the universe changed, regardless of the impact. The other species were most likely exactly where they were anyway, but that doesn't mean that they weren't still part of the alternate timeline. -Platypus Man| Talk 23:54, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

An interesting hypothetical solution to this problem is a local temporal anomaly with a perimeter which acts like a natural temporal shield. : ) Jaf 03:36, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

If we remove the year's he served, that is at least 2001 which we know to be true, then should we remove it on Clinton and all other presidents in which the years were never specified?--TOSrules 04:31, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

There is one difference between Clinton and Bush from the others...we don't know for sure that they were president, whereas we do know that the others were. --Alan del Beccio 04:36, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Grant, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush, all of these presidents were never referred to as President, additionally, Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Kennedy are the only ones that we know of their years of service and Johnson we can be sure of the year he begun but not the year he stopped being president. Although we don't know specifically the years he became president, we do know generally when Roosevelt was in office. That is what we know, if you only go by cannon. But as far as I understand, we do use minimal earthly information, if we remove that sort of information then we have to remove the distances of ever star system because that to was never canonlly established in Star Trek. That would be a radical shift in MA policy. --TOSrules 00:08, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think he basically said what I said, a lot longer and a lot louder. --Alan del Beccio 07:14, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

If I read you correctly, you were saying the opposite of what I was saying in my post. I support keeping the president status, as well as years of service for Bush, minus the year he left office at least till that happens. --TOSrules 07:21, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I understand your position, perhaps less is more in this instance. It seems this man is so evil that the mere mention of his name is enough to ignite controversy. -BajoranBumpkin 07:27, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

"I find your argument filled with gapping defects in logic" I say that in the same spirit Spock did. I think people see him as evil because they want to believe it, just as he wanted to believe in WMD's, maybe you and Bush are not so different. --TOSrules 07:38, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but let's not resort to personal attacks. Additionally, this is not the place to discuss politics. -BajoranBumpkin 07:41, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

No insult intended, you started it, and I didn't call you evil like you did to him. This is why I hate politics on MA. But I think I made my point either we put the basic presidential info back on or we have to change the whole site include star distances. --TOSrules 07:45, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty clear what you intended when you compared me to a man I referred to as evil, but let's let that rest as I don't think he started it gets us anywhere. As far as information pertaining to Bush... I think it sounds fine the way it is. We know who he is, and even if we didn't, knowing more information doesn't benefit our knowledge of the Trek universe - him being an American statesman post-Hitler is enough. Besides which, the ambiguity encompasses his career as governor, so in a way, this is just a more compact version of what you want it to say. -BajoranBumpkin 07:51, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I like Bush, so I must like you. --TOSrules 01:26, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I was just tring to use that italics bold to point out the diffrence between the canon part of the convo, and my acctual points for the debate. --TOSrules 07:16, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

If an individual was not clearly or canonically identified as a president, then they should not be identified in their artice as a president, especially Grant. At most it should be noted in the background of both the individuals page and the page of presidents, but should not be treated as an up-front fact. I think that was made rather clear when this all started way back in the William J. Clintondebate. Hence why this article was ambiguated into what it is now. --Alan del Beccio 08:01, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

But the image used was the exact same image of President Bush and Prime MinisterBlair shaking hands in the White House that we saw on television in our own universe. Would it be likely that there were two exact same images but they held different titles? Does anybody even know what the heck I just asked? --From Andoria with Love 09:07, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

How do we even know it's even George Bush and Tony Blair? They could be undercover Klingons trying to kill Kirk. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by211.34.16.130 (talk).

Okay, now that is a bit much, but I do see where you're going with this... --From Andoria with Love 09:15, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I maintain that a page about the timestream with all of these images and points, instead of individual pages full of guess work and non-canon info, would make a lot of sense. Jaf 12:55, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Then what about USS Cheyenne? I put pna-cite on there, but it was replaced with a note about how we can "infer" that it existed? -Coke 20:47, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've not even read all of the comments above, since they are so frequently off topic or confusing, so I really have little clue what the users' issues are here, but I think Bush, Clinton, et al appearing in the "timestream images" means they were presidents in the Star Trek universe. I simply don't see how we could have an interpretation that they were not -- the producers chose those shots in the order they did to show the timeline there unfolding exactly as it did here.

I don't think there's any assumption to it -- we know the producers already subscribe to an interpretation of the timeline where things are more similar to "our reality" than they are to some "alternate realities" where we have DY-100s, Nomad probes and Eugenics Wars.

The producers intended the timestream to be recognizable -- that's why they put pictures of our presidents -- so that we would recognize them as our presidents. Any other interpretation is really just being a little too literal in my opinion. And i don't find recognizing Bush or Clinton as President to require any major shift i MA policy, as I see it.

If anyone wishes to continue to discuss this or comment on any point i've made, could we do it in this subsection with a minimum of:

I strongly disagree. I feel that the whole argument is speculative. All we really know is that there were some pictures. We are adding the meaning ourselves. Jaf 23:22, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Alright, who wants to remove the distances of all our stars, and they translations for all those names, if we remove that Bush was president and the years of service we have to do that. There is no difference. I mean it will be allot of work to remove all the "speculation" real world data we have on this site. Unless someone volunteers for this awesome task, we have to keep Bush the way it was. --TOSrules 01:22, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Work to do if we decide this radical cource: Grant, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush, all of these presidents were never referred to as President, additionally, Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Kennedy are the only ones that we know of their years of service and Johnson we can be sure of the year he begun but not the year he stopped being president. Although we don't know specifically the years he became president, we do know generally when Roosevelt was in office. --TOSrules 01:26, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Jaf, I feel the meaning was added by the producers. they know, like most in the media, that an image of the President causes the viewer to see the image and know it is the President.. they put it there to let us know that Bush was president, that Clinton was president, in the timestream we were viewing. otherwise,they could have put pictures of total strangers playing the president -- then it would be presumptuous to assume that an unrecognizable non-speaking extra appearing in the footage might be President -- but they didnt do that -- they put in images of the real presidents.

I don't need to speculate to know who the president of the US is.. i know. when the producers chose a picture of a real president over the possibility of using an actor, i feel they pretty much decided they were showing the PResident, on purpose. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:06, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you and A.J. The images were chosen specifically to let us, the audience, know that the timeline was back on track by showing us our recent and current presidents. --From Andoria with Love 02:27, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

While I disagree and strongly feel that a Timestream article is the best solution, I will bow to the masses as I am clearly out numbered. Jaf 02:39, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Wow, he was. While looking for a screencap of the aeroshuttle in the montage of future images seen in the 31st century database in "Future Tense", I found a state of the union address by "President Bush". It also refers to Saddam Hussein. Although it is late, and i will translate it in detail tomarrow afternoon. Sorry to keep you in suspence.

However, this is the easily translatable part:

[In News]
The State of the Union: Frightened
State of the Union: Frightened.
President Bush did his best today to scare the bejesus
out of his (something) Tuesday to make his case
for war. And afterward, he was probably the only

This sounds like a real segment of news somewhere, so if someone could find it...- AJHalliwell 06:45, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Update: It appears to be mainly what is here. - AJHalliwell 06:47, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I think this debate has gone as far as it can, I believe we should vote on who thinks it we should include the real world data like personal knowledge that we know the person is or was the president, and the real years of service or not, Yes vote = keep the real world data, No vote = only stick to canon. Although I must ask where do we get their names from? Do not forget to sign --TOSrules 02:40, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, i don't think that you are using the term "canon" correctly. We know all of this is from the script and the filmed episode, and therefore is canon -- we are discussing how much information we should place on the Memory Alpha page -- basically which of the information is part of a valid resource. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Point taken, although to me canon is only onscreen evidence. But I am glad this vote went my way, Real life info does have a place on MA, if used sparingly. As I pointed out above the issue would have gone far beyond Bush to all prez's, and even beyond that. --TOSrules 07:24, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

No!! Hehe, also the fact that we are even making up these people's names was pointed out during the Clinton VFD - Talk:William J. Clinton. Jaf 02:49, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Yes, based on below stipulations (by the way, we get names from the scripts -- and i'm willing to bet the script says "Clinton" "Bush" "9/11" in some sense -- but it could seem like "making up" if you are not familiar with the concept of "research") -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

We are having a vote, I have a point of view that is different from yours, I am perfectly willing to bow if/when I am out voted and you insult me, thanks a lot for that. Jaf 03:23, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Sorry, I was just trying to emphasize the we are trying to delve into the script for this episode and the documentation/narration/notation whatever the producers mustve used when writing it -- and that we don't vote on whether to "make things up" on this site. I didn't mean for you to take the brunt of it, i'm just saying that if we find a way to confirm and cite this information to the script, it may shed more light. I'm just trying to push the argument towards a resolution mode, that is where we find some real good evidence that could sway the opinion of whether this information is valid or not. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:37, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I know you are just trying do right by this wiki and therefore got a little defensive, but you said it and you meant it, if you are sorry for it an apology is the correct coarse of action. I am also just trying to do right by this wiki, the reason I suggested a timestream page in the first place was to cool the heated debate, I want to stop an endless stream of trouble that this has and is going to bring. Clinton and Bush are just the start, can you see what a 9/11 page is going to do? Jaf 03:45, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Yes -- However, I say keep the 2008 info out, as we don't know if (and I don't mean this in any other way then I'm saying it) something would stop him from serving as president before then. - AJHalliwell 03:55, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Yes, visual evididence is canon. Real world information should have articles if there is some evidence they exist in Star Trek. If feel the conflict of opinions has been blown way out of perportion, probably by the confict of opinions over the man the article is about. Jaz 03:59, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure voting "yes" or "no" will help some of the gray areas here, so I'll define the "parameters" of what i believe is inferred from the producers choice of using real archival new footage (remember, TOS: "The City on the Edge of Forever" showed clips of films rather than completely using newsreel footage -- to give the general eras desribed -- but the choice of the producers to use news footage rather than manufactured scenery in ENT belies a definite intention to define the activity shown -- they showed Bush because we know Bush, they showed 9/11 because we know 9/11.

TOSrules listed some specific points about the years of presidency not being referred to in the Trek universe. A.J. H., F.A.w.L. (Shran), and myself all believe it was the producer's intentions to illustrate Bush and Clinton (and various other real-life figures) in their real-life roles -- in my opinion, because of Occam's Razor, which leads me to believe it would be completely ridiculous to believe they were not Presidents (also, was any of them pictured near a Presidential Seal? -- that might be relevant) -- why would we see them (representing the historical progress of their nation's history by appearing in the timestream footage the ENT producers designed to show such historical progress), acting in the capacity of Presidents, if they were not? I can't think of any good explanations why that would be the case?

However, we can't let this be an experiment in changing MA policy, as TOSrules pointed out, in his own way. We can't make this a free-for all for historical info on Bush (or Clinton, etc) -- some of you have already started to snap at each other over th discussion of Bush's character -- and I'm sick of seeing it, its the main reason I started a new subsection. I'm not interested in hearing anyone chat about Bush's career -- i know too much about it already.

We should probably just ambiguously state "he was a 21st centuryUS President" and maybe link to Texas -- since many are correct in pointing out, we have no idea, by looking at the filmclip, whether he served from 2000-2008 or maybe in the "alternate timeline" of the trek universe he served different years -- we just don't know by a little clip of him shaking Blair's hand. I'm saying, truthfully describe that he was President, keep the date ambiguous, and don't mention anything relating to his presidency, since it hasn't been shown on Trek.

This will mean we might have a brief 9/11 (World Trade Center) article about the image pictured there -- i want to caution in advance that this mention should be courteous, respectful, and brief, again since no relevant Trek-universe information about 9/11 can be derived from he brief footage -- although the date of 9/11 i think is a given (again, inferred from the fact that producers were illustrating American history and couldnt have meant the image to represent anything but that particular day).. but again, i don't think there's any further Trek has delved into the subject, so that's where we stop also. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:54, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

This is largely a rehash of what has already been said, however now it is a little more one-sided as the other side of this debate has been toned down. As I have become the devil's advocate in this debate I address this by simply saying: Can of worms and Timestream page. : ) For the record I recognize the fact that I am not going to win this, I just want to say that I am just trying to be helpful, I walked into this debate half way along and was trying to clean it up by offering a solution, the use of insult and slander here especially by admin was unwarranted and unhelpful. Jaf 03:32, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Basically it should be driven by the same policy as stars, only the most basic info from the real world can be used. Stars sometimes translate the meaning of it's name and the distances. Presidents should have there number, years of service and that they were president. That is bare minmum info. In the case of Bush till 2009 it is logical to not list when his term ends. But I hope we can all agree that once we know for sure his years of service it should be added in to. That is how I see it should be. --TOSrules 05:40, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the pic of the WTCs be on their own page? They may represent something during the bush administration, but there aren't pictures of Nazi's on FDR's page. And it's only mentioned in the background info for some reason??? Also, if the info regarding his State of the Union was seen on screen, shouldn't they get their own article? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by156.63.113.54 (talk).